DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2371#0153
ARJUNA AND DITARMARA.JA's RATHA. 131
Baladitya monastery at Nalancla.1 He published a plan of this, said
to be the result of his excavations, in a pamphlet in 1872, and a
restored elevation of the building in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic
Society for the same year (Vol. XLI); but in neither case is it
possible to make out what he found, or what he invented, and his
text is so confused and illogical that it is impossible from it, to
make the one agree with the other, or to feel sure of any of the
results he attained. So far as can be made out it was a five-
storeyed vihara, measuring about 80 feet square according to the
text, though the scale attached to the plan makes it more than
100 feet, and the two lower storeys averaging about 12 feet each,
were found to be nearly entire, the height of the ruins still standing
being on the different sides 30 or 40 feet. There was a portico on
the east with 12 pillars, which led to a cell 22 feet square, in which
was found a headless statue of Buddha 4 feet in height. The
second storey, 63 feet square, was set back 8 or 9 feet from the
lower one, and the whole may have made up five storeys, with a
height of about 70 feet, assuming the proportions to have been
about those of the Dharmaraja Ratha just described. The upper
storey may, however, have assumed a more spire-like form, as was
the case in Burmah, and made up the total height of 100 feet,
though this is still far from the height of 200 or 300 feet, which
Hiuen Thsang ascribes to the building he saw.2
From a photograph it appears that the base, for a height of
about 5 feet, was adorned with courses of brickwork richly moulded,
and above that with a rane-e of niches 3 feet 3 inches in height,
between pilasters 4 feet 6 high. These bore a cornice in moulded
I am unable to ascertain how far these excavations are coincident with those of
Captain Marshall in 1871. The latter are described by General Cunningham, vol. i.
of las Reports, p. 33, but he does not, so far as I am aware, allude to Mr. Broadley's
either in this or a subsequent Eeport, in his third volume published in 1874, and tbe
dimensions he quotes in describing this Vihara by no means agree with those given by
f. Broadley. I have since the above was in type, received from Mr. Beglar, a
photograph of the part uncovered by Mr. Broadley, but unfortunately taken from so low
a point of view, as hardly to assist in understanding the form of the building. It is,
owever, sufficient to show how utterly worthless Mr. Broadley's drawings are, and to
enable us to ascertain the date of the building with very tolerable certainty. '
Juhen's Translation, vol. i. p. 160 ; vol. iii. p. 50. If the latter dimension is
assumed as the correct one, as the Chinese foot is nearly 13 English inches, the
1 lara must liave been as high as the cross on the dome of St. Paul's.
i 2
Baladitya monastery at Nalancla.1 He published a plan of this, said
to be the result of his excavations, in a pamphlet in 1872, and a
restored elevation of the building in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic
Society for the same year (Vol. XLI); but in neither case is it
possible to make out what he found, or what he invented, and his
text is so confused and illogical that it is impossible from it, to
make the one agree with the other, or to feel sure of any of the
results he attained. So far as can be made out it was a five-
storeyed vihara, measuring about 80 feet square according to the
text, though the scale attached to the plan makes it more than
100 feet, and the two lower storeys averaging about 12 feet each,
were found to be nearly entire, the height of the ruins still standing
being on the different sides 30 or 40 feet. There was a portico on
the east with 12 pillars, which led to a cell 22 feet square, in which
was found a headless statue of Buddha 4 feet in height. The
second storey, 63 feet square, was set back 8 or 9 feet from the
lower one, and the whole may have made up five storeys, with a
height of about 70 feet, assuming the proportions to have been
about those of the Dharmaraja Ratha just described. The upper
storey may, however, have assumed a more spire-like form, as was
the case in Burmah, and made up the total height of 100 feet,
though this is still far from the height of 200 or 300 feet, which
Hiuen Thsang ascribes to the building he saw.2
From a photograph it appears that the base, for a height of
about 5 feet, was adorned with courses of brickwork richly moulded,
and above that with a rane-e of niches 3 feet 3 inches in height,
between pilasters 4 feet 6 high. These bore a cornice in moulded
I am unable to ascertain how far these excavations are coincident with those of
Captain Marshall in 1871. The latter are described by General Cunningham, vol. i.
of las Reports, p. 33, but he does not, so far as I am aware, allude to Mr. Broadley's
either in this or a subsequent Eeport, in his third volume published in 1874, and tbe
dimensions he quotes in describing this Vihara by no means agree with those given by
f. Broadley. I have since the above was in type, received from Mr. Beglar, a
photograph of the part uncovered by Mr. Broadley, but unfortunately taken from so low
a point of view, as hardly to assist in understanding the form of the building. It is,
owever, sufficient to show how utterly worthless Mr. Broadley's drawings are, and to
enable us to ascertain the date of the building with very tolerable certainty. '
Juhen's Translation, vol. i. p. 160 ; vol. iii. p. 50. If the latter dimension is
assumed as the correct one, as the Chinese foot is nearly 13 English inches, the
1 lara must liave been as high as the cross on the dome of St. Paul's.
i 2